Keegan v Police - [2020] NZHC 489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2020-441-000002

[2020] NZHC 489

BETWEEN
AARON JON KEEGAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 6 March 2020

Counsel:

E J Forster for the Appellant

M M Mitchell for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

Introduction

[1] This is an application appealing the sentence imposed on the appellant, Mr Keegan, on 16 January 2020 in the Hastings District Court by Judge Couch. The Judge sentenced Mr Keegan to two years, five months’ imprisonment.1

[2] This was in relation to seven charges against the same victim, a woman with whom Mr Keegan had been in a relationship with for several years. There were four breaches of a protection order,2 two charges of assault with a weapon,3 and one charge of dishonestly using a document.4

1      Police v Keegan [2020] NZDC 815.
2      Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 19(2)(c), 49(1)(b) and 49(3); maximum penalty of three years’
imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202C; maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 228(1)(a); maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

KEEGAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 489 [12 March 2020]

Factual overview

[3] Following several family harm incidents, a protection order was made in November 2018 protecting the victim from Mr Keegan. On the morning of 31 May 2019, Mr Keegan went to the victim’s home uninvited. He was told to leave, but he refused to do so. Mr Keegan managed to get inside the house nonetheless, and an argument developed. Mr Keegan was told again several times to leave but he refused to go. This was the first breach of the protection order.

[4] Mr Keegan picked up a crowbar and struck a coffee table and then followed the victim around the house, brandishing the crowbar. He smashed a bedroom light with it. He swung it at the victim’s head and struck her on the arm as she raised it to protect herself. Mr Keegan only left the premises when a third party called the police. This was the first assault with a weapon.

[5] On 13 June 2019 the victim let Mr Keegan borrow her car for a short trip. Her bank card was in the car and he used it without permission to obtain goods or money to the value of $170. This led to the dishonestly using a document charge.

[6] Mr Keegan returned the vehicle much later than arranged and an argument started. Again, he was told many times to leave but refused. This led the victim to going elsewhere overnight to escape from Mr Keegan. This was the second breach of the protection order.

[7] When the victim returned home the following day Mr Keegan was asleep in her bed. The victim started to get her belongings together in order to leave again. She told Mr Keegan her mother was expected to arrive any time soon and that the police would be called.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Keegan v Police

Details

AGLC: Keegan v Police [2020] NZHC 489
Case: [2020] NZHC 489
Decision Date: 12 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr Aaron Keegan appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the Hastings District Court, which sentenced him to two years and five months’ imprisonment for multiple charges against his former partner. The appeal raised four questions about the sentencing process: whether the starting point of 18 months for the lead charge was too high, whether the uplift for the remaining charges was excessive, whether the uplift for previous convictions was excessive, and whether the final sentence was too high. The starting point for the lead charge was found to be appropriate, as the Court found the aggravating factors present justified its placement in the middle of band two of Nuku v R. The uplift of 12 months for the remaining charges was also found to be appropriate, given the serious nature of the breaches of the protection order and the use of the victim’s eftpos card. The uplift of three months for previous convictions was found to be appropriate, as it did not amount to double-counting and reflected the disregard for court processes. The final sentence of two years, five months’ imprisonment was not found to be manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders